





^ -'Job' w N«^ ^ 



*6$ 




>0 A**^ 










£°«* 




-V >* ^ 



•bv* 


















%. 




o* .•-•- 











c5°^ 




<>.* ~%<v 



SPEECH 






Wwar^ 



MR., EVERETT, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



DELIVERED 



IN Til 17 , SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEB 8, 1854, 



v 






NEBRASKA AND KANSAS TERRITORIAL BILL. 



b. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1854. 



E^ 3 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



Mr. EVERETT said: 

Mr. President, I intimated yesterday that if 
time had been allowed, I should have been glad 
to submit to the Senate my views at some length 
in relation to some of the grave constitutional and 
political principles and questions involved in the 
measure before us. Even for questions of a lower 
order, those of a merely historical character, the 
time which has elapsed since this bill, in its present 
form, was brought into the Senate, which I think 
is but a fortnight ago yesterday, has hardly been 
sufficient, for one not previously possessed of the 
information, to acquaint myself fully with the de- 
tails belonging to the subject before us, even to 
these which relate to subordinate parts of it, such 
as our Indian relations. Who will undertake to 
say how they will be affected by the measure 
now before the Senate, either under the provisions 
of the bill in that respect as it stood yesterday, or 
as it will stand now that all the sections relative 
to the Indians have been stricken out ? And 
then, sir, with respect to that other and greater 
subject, the question of slavery as connected with 
our recent territorial acquisitions, it would take a 
person more than a fortnight to even read through 
the voluminous debates since 1848, the knowledge 
of which is necessary for a thorough comprehen- 
sion of this important and delicate subject. 

For these reasons, sir, I shall not undertake at 
this time to discuss any of these larger questions. 
I rise for a much more limited purpose — to speak 
for myself, and without authority to speak for 
anybody else, as a friend and supporter of the 
compromises of 1850, and to inquire whether it is 
my duty, and how far it is the duty of others who 
agree with me in that respect, out of fidelity to 



those compromises, to support the bill which is 
now on your table, awaiting the action of the Sen- 
ate. This, I feel, is a narrow question; but this 
is the question which I propose, at no very great 
length, to consider at the present time. 

I will, however, before I enter upon this subject, 
say, that the main question involved in the pas- 
sage of a bill of this kind is well calculated to exalt 
and expand the mind. We are about to take a 
first step in laying the foundations of two new 
States, of two sister independent Republics, here- 
after to enter into the Union, which already em- 
braces thirty-one of these sovereign States, and 
which, no doubt, in the, course of the present cen- 
tury, will include a much larger number. I think 
Lord Bacon gives the second place among the 
great of the earth to the founders of States — Con- 
ditores imperiorum. And though it may seem to 
us that we are now legislating for a remote 
part of the unsubdued wilderness, yet the time 
will come, and that not a very long time, when 
these scarcely existing territories, when these al- 
most empty wastes, will be the abode of hundreds 
and thousands of kindred, civilized fellow-men 
and fellow-citizens. Yes, sir, the time is not far 
distant, probably, when Kansas and Nebraska, 
now unfamiliar names to us all, will sound to the 
ears of their inhabitants as Virginia, and Massa- 
chusetts, and Kentucky, and Ohio, and the names 
of the other old States, do to their children. Sir, 
these infantTerritories, if they may even at present 
be called by that name, occupy a most important 
position in the geography of this continent. They 
stand where Persia, Media, and Assyria stood in 
the continent of Asia, destined to hold the balance 
of power — to be the centers of influence to the East 



and to the West.* Sir, the fountains that trickle from 
the snow-capped crests of the Sierra Madre flow 
in one direction to the Gulf of Mexico, in another 
to the St. Lawrence, and in another to the Pacific. 
The commerce of the world, eastward from Asia, 
and westward from Europe, is destined to pass 
through the gates of the Rocky Mountains over the 
iron pathways which we are even now about to lay 
down through those Territories. Cities of unsur- 
passed magnitude and importance are deStined to 
crown the banks of their noble rivers. Agriculture 
Will clothe with plenty the vast plains now ronmed 
over by the savage and the buffalo. And may 
we not hope, that, under the aegis of wise consti- 
tutions of free government, religion and laws, 
morals and education, and the arts of civilized 
life, will add all the graces of the highest and 
purest culture to the gifts of nature and the boun- 
ties of Providence ? 

Sir, I assure you it was with great regret, having 
in my former congressional life uniformly concur- 
red in every measure relating to the West which 
I supposed was for the advantage and prosperity 
of that part of the country, that as a member of 
the Committee on Territories, I found myself un- 
able to support the bill which the majority of that 
committee had prepared to bring forward for the 
organization of these Territories. I should have 
been rejoiced if it had been in my power to give 
my support to the measure. But the hasty ex- 
amination which, while the subject was before the 
committee, I was able to give to it, disclosed ob- 
jections to the bill which I could not overcome; 
and more deliberate inquiry has increased the 
force of those objections. 

I had, in the first place, some scruples— objec- 
tions I will not call them, Because" ! think I could 
have overcome them— as to the expediency of 
giving a territorial government of the highest order, 
to this region at the present time. 

In the debate on this subject in the House of 
Representatives last year, inquiries were made as 
to the number of inhabitants in the Territory, and 
1 believe no one undertook to make out that there 
were more than four hundred, orfive hundred, or, 
at the outside, six hundred white inhabitants in 
the region in which you are now going to organize 
two cf these independent territorial governments, 
with two Legislative Councils, i ich consisting of 
thirteen members, and two Legislative Assemblies 

of twenty-six i i -h, with all the details 

and apparatus of territorial governments of the 
1 host rank. 



* The iilca in thi* sentence w*s ra&eMed by a very atrik- 
, itorial article CD a late number of life St. Louis Daily 
I .iicer. 



It seems to me that this is not called for by the 
condition of the country, and is somewhat prema- 
ture. It was the practice in the earlier stages of 
our legislation to have a territorial government 
of a simpler form. In the Territories which were 
organized upon the pattern prescribed by the or- 
dinance of 1787, there was a much simpler govern- 
ment. A governor and judges were appointed by 
the President of the United States, and authorized 
to make such laws as might be necessary, sub- 
ject of course to the allowance or disallowance 
vf Congress; and that organization served very 
well for the nascent state of the Territories. 
There was a limit prescribed to governments of 
this kind. When the population amounted to five 
thousand male inhabitants, I think it was, they 
were allowed to have a representative government. 
This may, perhaps, be too high a number, and may 
not be in entire accordance with the character of 
our people, and the genius of our institutions; but 
still, sir, 1 do think, that a government of this 
kind which we propose now to organize, with a 
constituency so small as now exists, cannot be 
that which the wants or the interests of the people 
1 require, and is in many respects objectionable. It 
brings the representative into dangerous relations 
with the constituent; and bestows upon a mere 
1 handful of men too much power in organizing the 
government, and laying the foundations of the State. 
It is true, we are told, that the moment the in- 
tercourse act is repealed, there will be a great in- 
flux of population. I have no doubt that will be 
the case. There is also a throng of adventurers 
constantly pouring through this country towards 
the West, which requires an efficient Government. 
But even making all due allowance for these cir- 
cumstances, I do think that it is somev hat prema- 
ture to give this floating, and — if I may so call it 

unstationary population, all the discretionary 

powers t« be vested in a territorial government 
of the first class. 1 think it is giving coo much 
power, too much discretion, to a population that 
will not probably amount at first to more than a 
few hundred individuals. Still, however, T admit 
that this is but a question of time. I do not think 
it a point of vital importance. 

When I consider the prodigious rapidity with 
which our population is increasing by its native 
growth — when I consider the tide of immigration 
from Europe, a phenomenon the parallel of which 
does not exist in the history of the world, an immi- 
gration of three or four hundred thousand, of which 
the greater part are adults, pou ring into this country 
every year, adding to our numbers an amount of 
population greater than that of some of the older 
! States, and those not of the smallest size, and this 



double tide flowing into the West, so that what is 
a wilderness to-day is a settled neighborhood to- 
morrow — when 1 consider these things, 1 do admit 
that a question of this nature is but a question of 
time; and if there were no other difficulty attend- j 
irig the bill, I should not be disposed to object to it , 
on this score. 

But, sir, the relation of the Indian tribes to the 
question is, I confess, in my mind, a matter of! 
greater difficulty. Senators all know that the 
eastern strip of this Territory — I believe for its 
whole extent — certainly from the southern bound- 1 
ary of Kansas, far up to the north — is occupied 
by indian tribes, and the fragments of Indian I 
tribes. They are not in their original location. I 
All the Indians who are there, I believe, have 
already undergone one removal, and some of them ! 
two. In pursuance of the policy which was car- i 
ried into execution on so large a scale under the ! 
administration of General Jackson, a large num- j 
ber of tribes and fragments of tribes were col- I 
lected upon this eastern frontier of the proposed 
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and have re- 
mained there ever since, some of them having made 
considerable progress in the arts of civilized life. 

The removal of the Indians was one of the 
prominent measures of General Jackson's ad- 
ministration. It was my fortune, sir — it was 
twenty- four years ago, I believe — my friend from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bell] will recollect it — as a 
member of the other House, to take an active 
part in the discussion of this question. He will 
remember, I am sure, the ardent, but not un- 
friendly, conflicts between himself, as chairman 
of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and myself 
on that subject. I then maintained that it was 
impossible, if you removed these Indians to the 
West, to give them a "permanent home;" for 
that was the cardinal idea, the very corner-stone 
of the policy of General Jackson — to remove the 
Indians from their locations east of the Missis- 
sippi river, where they were crowded by the white 
population, and undergoing hardships of various 
kinds, so far west as would allow them to find a 
permanent home. I ventured to say then that, 
in my opinion, they could find no more permanent 
home west than east of the Mississippi. My friend 
from Tennessee thought otherwise, and said so, 
speaking, I am sure, in as good faith as I did in ex- 
pressing the opposite opinion. But the policy was 
carried through, and an act was passed authoriz- 
ing an exchange of the lands occupied by the 
Indians east of the Mississippi for other lauds 
west of that river. I will read a single short sec- 
tion from that act: 

" Sec. 3. Jlnd be it farther enacted, Tiiui in making of 



such exchange or exchanges, it shall and may lie lawful for 
t!ie President solemnly to assure the trihe or nation with 
v. hleh the exchange is made, thai the United Stains will for- 
ever secure ami guaranty to them, ami their heirs and suc- 
cessors, the country so exehatmed with them ; and if they 
prefer it, the United States will cause a patenter grant to be 
made and executed to them for the same: Provided, always, 
That such land- shall revert to the United States, if the In- 
dians. become extinct, or abandon the same." 

This was the legislative foundation of the policy; 
and General Jackson deemed it of so much con- 
sequence that, in his Farewell Address, he congrat- 
ulated the country on the success with which it had 
been carried out; and his successor, Mr. Van Bu- 
ren, in one of his annual messages, spoke of it in 
the same glowing terms. 

Now, sir, these were the hopes, these were the 
expectations on which the policy of removing the 
Indians west of the Mississippi proceeded. I do 
not recall the recollection of the subject reproach- 
fully; I have no reproach to cast upon any one. 
Events which no mortal could have foreseen have 
taken place. The whole condition of our western 
frontier has been changed. Our territorial acqui- 
sitions on the Pacific, and the admission of a sister 
State in that quarter to the Union, have created a 
political necessity of an urgent character for im- 
proved means of communication, und I fear that 
it is not possible to preserve intact this Indian 
barrier. But I want information on that subject. 
I should like to hear other Senators, who under- 
stand the subject much better than I do, tell ua 
how that matter stands; and whether it is abso- 
I lutely necessary that this measure should go on, 
i in the manner described by the bill, which, it 
seems to me, if not conducted with the utmost 
care, will be attended with great inconvenience, if 
not utter destruction, to those remnants of tribes. 
If we must use that hateful plea of necessity, 
j which I am always unwilling to take upon my 
: lips; if we must use the tyrant's plea of necessity, 
and invade " the permanent home" of these chil- 
I dren of sorrow and oppression, I hope we shall 
treat them with more than justice, with more than 
equity, with the utmost kindness and tenderness. 
i Now, I am unable to say, not having ample in- 
I formation on the subject, how their condition will 
i be affected by the clauses in the bill which were 
' struck out yesterday. I am unable to say how it 
j will be affected by leaving the bill without any 
, provisions in reference to that subject. There are, 
! of course, to be appropriations for negotiating with 
| the Indians in other bills; the Senator from Illinois 
j intimated as much; but what the measures to be 
I proposed are, I should like to be better informed. I 
have no suspicions on the subject; I have no mis- 
i givings. I have no doubt that Senators and the 



6 



Executive will be animated with the purest spirit 
of humanity and tenderness toward these unfor- 
tunate fellow-men ; but I should like to know what 
is to be done with them. I should like to know 
how the bill in its present condition, or with such 
supplementary measures as are to be brought in 
hereafter, will leave these persons who depend 
upon us, upon our kindness, upon our consider- 
ation, for their very existence. I hope that, before 
this debate closes, we shall hear something on this 
point from members of the body who are compe- 
tent to speak on the subject. Unless the difficulty 
which 1 feel on this point shall be removed, I 
shall be compelled, on this ground alone, to op- 
pose any such territorial bill. 

Trusting, however, that proper precautions will 
be taken, and that measures will be adopted, if 
possible, to give to themoreadvanced individualsof 
these tribes, personal reservations of land, to save 
them from being driven off to some still more remote 
resort in the wilderness ; trusting that this, or 
some other measure of wisdom and kindness will 
be pursued, I think I could cheerfully support the 
territorial bill, which passed the House of Repre- 
sentatives at the last session, and was lost in this 
body, I believe, for want of time, in the very 
last hours, certainly on the very last day, of the 
late session of Congress. If I could have been 
assured that proper safeguards were contained in 
that bill for the Indians, I should have been will- 
ing to support it; and when it was revived at this 
session of Congress, by the Senator from Iowa, 



" Except the 8th section of the act preparatory to the ad- 
mission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, 
which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 
1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is 
hereby declared inoperative." 

On the day before yesterday the chairman of the 
Committee on Territories proposed to change the 
words "superseded by" to "inconsistent with," 
as expressing more distinctly all that he meant to 
convey by that impression. Yesterday, however, 
he brought in an amendment, drawn up with great 
skill and care, on notice given the day before, 
which is to strike out the words " which was 
superseded by the principles of the legislation of. 
1850, commonly called the compromise measures, 
and is hereby declared inoperative," and to insert 
in lieu of them the following: 

" Whieh, being inconsistent with the principle of non-in- 
tervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Ter- 
ritories, as recognized by the legislation of 1S50, commonly 
called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inop- 
erative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of 
this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, 
nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- 
tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
the United States." 

Now, I agree with the remark made by the 
chairman of the committee yesterday, that this is 
a change in the phraseology alone. It covers a 
somewhat broader ground , but the latter part of it 
is explanatory; and as to the main point in which 
it is proposed to declare the Missouri restriction 
of 1820 " inoperative and void," I do not find any 



[Mr. Dodge,] and referred to the Committee on 

_ . . - . . , T , ., , . change between this amendment and the words 

Territories, of which I have the honor to be a j | t °._ , ._ 4l , . n Ti 

member, I did certainly hope that, if it were 

thought expedient to report any bill for organizing 

this Territory, that one would have been adopted 



by the committee. The majority thought other- 
wise, however, and they have reported the bill 
before the Senate. 

I will not take up the time of the Senate by 
going over the somewhat embarrassing and per- 
plexed history of the bill, from its first entry into 
the Senate until the present time. I will take it as 
it now stands, as it is printed on our tables, and 
with the amendment which was offered by the 
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] yesterday, 
and which, I suppose, is now printed, and on our 
tables; and I will state, as briefly as I can, the diffi- 
culties which I have found in giving my support 
to this bill, either as it stands, or as it will stand 
when the amendment shall be adopted. My chief 
objections are to the provisions on the subject of 
slavery, and especially to the exception, which is 
contained in the 14th section, in the following 
words: 



contained in the bill on our tables. It seems to be 
the design of both to carry out the principle which 
was laid down by the chairman in his report. I 
will read from that report the following sentences, 
for I conceive them to be those which give the key 
to the whole measure: 

"In the judgment of your committee, those measures 
[the compromise measures of 1850] were intended to have 
a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere 
adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent ac- 
quisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to 
establish certain great principles which would not only 
furnisb adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all time 
to come avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdraw- 
ing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and 
the political arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of those 
who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible 
for, its consequences." 

This I suppose is the principle and the policy 
to which it is intended, either as it stood at first or 
as it is now proposed to amend it, to give the force 
of law in the bill now before us. 

Now, sir, I think, in the first place, that the 
language of "this proposed enactment, being ob- 



scare, is of somewhat doubtful import, and for 
that reason, unsatisfactory. I should have pre- 
ferred a little more directness. What is the con- 
dition of an enactment which is declared by a sub- 
sequent act of Congress to be "inoperative and 
void?" Does it remain in force? I take it, not. 
That would be a contradiction in terms, to say that 
an enactment which had been declared by act of 
Congress inoperative and void, is still in force. 
Then , if it is not in force, if it is not only inopera- 
tive and void, as it is to be declared, but is not in 
force, it is of course repealed. If it is to be re- 
pealed, why not say so? I think it would have 
been more direct and more parliamentary to say 
"shall be and is hereby repealed." Then we 
should know precisely, so far as legal and technical 
terms go, what the amount of this new legislative 
provision is. 

If the form is somewhat objectionable, I think 
the substance is still more so. The amendment 
is to strike out the words " which was super- 
seded by," and to insert a provision that the act 
of 1820 is inconsistent with the principle of con- 
gressional non-intervention, and is therefore in- 
operative and void. I do not quite understand 
how much is conveyed in this language. The 
Missouri restriction of 1820, it is said , is inconsist- 
ent with the principle of the legislation of 1850. 
If anything more is meant by " the principle" of 
the legislation of 1850, than the measures which 
were adopted at that time in reference to the Ter- 
ritories of New Mexico and Utah — for I may 
assume that those are the legislative measures re- 
ferred to — if anything more is meant than that a 
certain measure was adopted, and enacted in ref- 
erence to those Territories, I take issue on that point. 
I do not know that it could be proved that, even in 
reference to those Territories, a principle was en- 
acted at all. A certain measure, or, if you please, 
a course of measures, was enacted in reference to 
the Territories of New Mexico and Utah; but I 
do not know that you can call this enacting a prin- 
ciple. It is certainly not enacting a principle 
which is to carry with it a rule for other Terri- 
tories lying in other parts of the country, and in 
a different legal position. As to the principle of 
non-intervention on the part of Congress in the 
question of slavery, I do not find that, either as 
principle or as measure, it was enacted in those 
territorial bills of 1850. I do not, unless I have 
greatly misread them, find that there is anything 
at all which comes up to that. Every legislative 
act of those territorial governments must come be- 
fore Congress for allowance or disallowance, and 
under those bills, without repealing them, without 
departing from them in the slightest degree, it 



would be competent for Congress to-morrow to 
pass any law on that subject. 

How then can it be said that the principle of non- 
intervention on the part of Congress in the sub- 
ject of slavery was enacted and established by 
the compromise measures of 1850 ? But, whether 
that be so or not, how can you find, in a simple 
measure applying in terms to these individual Ter- 
ritories, and to them alone, a rule which is to 
govern all other Territories with a retrospective 
and with a prospective action ? Is it not a mere 
begging of the question to say that those com- 
promise measures, adopted in this specific case, 
amount to such a general rule? 

But, let us try it in a parallel case. In the earlier 
land legislation of the United States, it was cus- 
tomary, without exception, when a Territory be- 
came a State, to require that there should be a 
stipulation in their State constitution that the pub- 
lic lands sold within their borders should be ex- 
empted from taxation for five years after the sale. 
This, I believe, continued to be the uniform prac- 
tice down to the year 1820, when the State of 
Missouri was admitted. She was admitted under 
this stipulation. If I mistake not, the next State 
which was admitted into the Union — but it is not 
important whether it was the next or not — came 
in without that stipulation , and they were left free 
to tax the public lands the moment when they 
were sold. Here was a principle; as much aprin- 
ciple as it is contended was established in the Utah 
and New Mexico territorial bill; but did any one 
suppose that it acted upon the other Territories ? 
I believe the whole system is now abolished under 
the operation of general laws, and the influence of 
that example may have led to the change. But, 
until it was made by legislation, the mere fact that 
public lands sold in Arkansas, were immediately 
subject to taxation, could not alter the law in re- 
gard to the public lands sold in Missouri, or in 
any other State where they were exempt. 

There is a case equally analogous to the very 
matter we are now considering — the prohibition 
or permission of slavery. The ordinance of 1787 
prohibited slavery in the territory northwest of the 
Ohio. In 1790 Congress passed an act accepting 
the cession which the State of North Carolina 
had made of the western part of her territory, with 
the proviso, that in reference to the territory thus 
ceded Congress should pass no laws " tending to 
the emancipation of slaves." Here was a pre- 
cisely parallel case. Here was territory in which, 
in 1787, slavery was prohibited. Here was terri- 
tory ceded by North Carolina, which became the 
territory of the United States south of the Ohio, 
in reference to which it was stipulated with North 



8 



Carolina, that Congress should pass no .laws tend- 
ing to the emancipation of slaves. But I believe 
it never occurred to any one that the legislation of 
1790 acted back upon the ordinance of 1787, or 
furnished a rule by which any effect could be pro- 
duced upon the state of things existing under that 
ordinance, in the territorry to which it applied. 

I certainly intend to do the distinguished chair- 
man of the committee no injustice; and I am not 
sure that I fully comprehend his argument in this 
respect; but I think his report sustains the view 
which I now take of the subject: that is, that the 
legislation of 1850 did not establish a principle 
which was designed to have any such effect as he 
intimates. That report states how matters stood 
in those new Mexican territories. It was al- 
leged on the one hand that by the Mexican lex 
loci slavery was prohibited. On the other hand 
that was denied, and it was maintained that the 
Constitution of the United States secures to every 
citizen the right to go there and take with him any 
property recognized as such by any of the States 
of the Union. The report considers that a simi- 
lar state of things now exists in Nebraska — that 
the validity of the eighth section of the Missouri 
act, by which slavery is prohibited in that Terri- 
tory, is doubtful, and that it is maintained by 
mahy distinguished statesmen that Congress has 
no power to legislate on the subject. Then, in 
this state of the controversy, the report maintains 
that the legislation of Congress in 1850 did not un- 
dertake to decide these questions. Surely, if they 
did not undertake to decide them, they could not 
settle the principle which is at stake in them; and, 
unless they did decide them, the measures then 
adopted must, be considered as specific measures, 
relating only to those cases, and not establishing 
a principle of general operation. This seems to 
me to be as direct and conclusive as anything can 
be. 

At all events, these are not impressions which 
are put forth by me under the exigencies of the 
present debate or of the present occasion. I have 
never entertained any other opinion. I was called 
upon for a particular purpose, of a literary nature, 
to which I will presently allude more distinctly, 
shortlyafter the close of thesession of 1850, to draw 
up a narrative of the events that had taken place 
relative to the passage of the compromise meas- 
ures of that year. I had not, I own, the best 
sources of information. I was not a member of 
Congress, und had not heard the debates, which is 
almost indispensable to come to a thorough under- 
standing of questions of this nature; but I inquired 
of those who had heard them, I read the report;-, 
and I had an opportunity of personal intercourse 



with some who had taken a prominent part in all 
of those measures. I never formed the idea — I 
never received the intimation until I got it from 
this report of the committee — that those measures 
were intended to have any effect beyond the Ter- 
ritories of Utah and New Mexico, for which they 
were enacted. I cannot but think that if it was 
intended that they should have any larger applica- 
tion, if it was intended that they should furnish 
the rule which is now supposed, it would have 
been a fact as notorious as the light of day. 

Look at the words of the acts themselves. 
They are specific. They give you boundaries. 
The lines are run. The Territories are geographic- 
ally marked out. They fill a particular place on the 
map of the continent; and it is provided that with- 
in those specific geographical limits a certain state 
of things, with reference to slavery, shall exist. 
That is all. There is not a word which states on 
what principle that is done. There is not a word 
to tell you that that state of things carries with it 
a rule which is to operate elsewhere — retrospect- 
ively upon territory acquired in 1803, and pros- 
pectively on territory that shall be acquired to the 
end of time. There is not a word to carry the 
operation of those measures over the geographical 
boundary which is laid down in the bills them- 
selves. 

It would be singular if, under any circumstances, 
the measures adopted should have this extended 
effect, without any words to indicate it. It would 
be singular, if there was nothing that stood in the 
way; but when you consider that there is a posi- 
tive enactment in the way — the eighth section of 
the Missouri law, which you now propose to re- 
peal because it does stand in the way — how can 
you think that these enactments of 1850 in refer- 
ence to Utah and New Mexico were intended to 
overleap these boundaries in the face of positive 
law to the contrary, and to fall upon and decide 
the organization of Territories in a region pur- 
chased from France nearly fifty years before, and 
subject to a distinct specific legislative pit) vision,, 
ascertaining its character in reference to slavery? 
Sir, it is to me a most singular thing that words of 
extension in 1854 should be thought necessary in 
this bill to give the effect supposed to have been 
intended to the provisions of the acts of 1850, and 
that it should not be thought necessary in 1850 to 
put these words of extension into the original bills 
themselves. 

Now, sir, let us look at the debates which took 
place at that time, because, of course, one may 
always gather much more from the debates on one 
side and the other on any great question , as to the 
intention and meaning of a law, than can begath- 



9 



ered from the words of the statute itself. I have 
not had time to read these debates fully. That is 
what I complained of in the beginning. I have 
not had time to read, as thoroughly as I could 
wish, those voluminous reports — for they fill the 
greater part of two or three thick quarto volumes; 
but in what. I have read, I do not find a single 
word from which it appears that any member of 
the Senate or House of Representatives, at that 
time, believed that the territorial enactments of 
1850, either as principle, or rule, or precedent, or 
by analogy, or in any other way, were to act re- 
trospectively or prospectively upon any other Ter- 
ritory. On the contrary, I find much, very much, 
of a broad, distinct, directly opposite bearing. I 
forbear to repeat quotations from the debates 
which have been made by Senators who have pre- 
ceded me. 

The proviso itself, which forms so prominent a 
characteristic and so important a part of this bill, 
the proviso that when the Territory, or any part of 
it, shall be admitted into the Union as a State or 
States, it shall be with or without slavery, as their 
constitution at the time of admission may pre- 
scribe, was no part of the original compromise, as 
I understand it. The compromise consisted in 
not inserting the Wilmot proviso in the Utah and 
New Mexico bills. That was moved and rejected, 
and the Territory was to come in without any such 
restriction. That was the compromise in reference 
to those Territories; and after the Wilmot proviso 
had been voted down , a distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana, [Mr. Soule,] not now a member of this 
body, but abroad in the foreign service of the 
country, moved the proviso which I have just re- 
cited; and he did it, as he said, "to feel the pulse 
of the Senate." Mr. Webster, in voting for that 
motion of Mr. Soule, as he had just voted against 
the Wilmot proviso, used these remarkable words: 

" Be it remembered, sir, that I now speak of Utah and 
New Mexico, and of them alone." 

It was with that caveat that Mr. Webster voted 
for the proviso which forms the characteristic 
portion of this bill, and which is supposed to carry 
with it a law applying to this whole Territory of 
Nebraska, although covered by the Missouri re- 
striction of 1820. Mr. Webster had on a former 
occasion, in the great speech of the 7th of March, 
1850, to which I shall in a moment advert again, 
used the following remarkable language: 

" And I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which I 
stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which 
I intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at 
this moment within the United States a single foot of land 
the character of which, in regard to its beina; free-soil ter- 
ritory or slave territory, is not fixed l>y some law, and some 
irrepealable law, beyond tile power of the action of the 
Government." 



He meant, of course, to give to the Missouri 
restriction the character of a compact which the 
Government in good faith could not repeal; and 
there was in the course of the speech a great deal 
more said to the same purpose. 

And now, sir, having alluded to the speech of 
Mr. Webster, of the 7th March, 1850, allow me 
to dwell upon it for a moment. I was in a po- 
sition next year — having been requested by that 
great and lamented man to superintend the publi- 
cation of his works — to know very particularly 
the comparative estimate which he placed upon 
his own parliamentary efforts. He told me more 
than once that he thought his second speech on 
Foot's resolution was that in which he had best 
succeeded as a senatorial effort, and as a specimen 
of parliamentary dialectics; but he added, with an 
emotion which even he was unable to suppress, 
" The speech of the 7th of March, 1850, much as 
I have been reviled for it, when I am dead, will be 
allowed to be of the greatest importance to the 
country." Sir, he took the greatest interest in 
that speech. He wished it to go forth with a spe- 
cific title; and after considerable deliberation, it 
was called, by his own direction, "A Speech for 
the Constitution and the Union." He inscribed 
it to the People of Massachusetts, in a dedication 
of the most emphatic tenderness, and he prefixed 
to it that motto — which you all remember — from 
Livy, the most appropriate and felicitous quota- 
tion, perhaps, that was ever made: " True things 
rather than pleasant things" — Vera pro gratis: and 
with that he sent it forth to the world. 

In that speech his gigantic intellect brought 
together all that it could gather from the law of 
nature, from the Constitution of the United States, 
from our past legislation , and from the physical fea- 
tures of the region, to strengthen him in that plan 
of conciliation and peace, in which he feared that 
he might not carry along with him the public sen- 
timent of the whole of that portion of the country 
which he particularly represented here. At its close, 
when he dilated upon the disastrous effects of sepa- 
ration, he rose to a strain of impassioned eloquence 
which has never been surpassed within these walls. 
Every topic, every argument, f very fact, was 
brought to bear upon the point; and he felt that all 
his vast popularity was at stake on the issue. Let 
me commend to the attention of Senators, and let 
me ask them to consider what weight is due to 
the authority of such a man, speaking under such 
circumstances, and on such an occasion, when 
he tells you that the condition of every foot of 
land in the country, for slavery or non-slavery, is 
fixed by some irrepealable law. And you are now 
about to repeal the principal law which ascertained 



10 



and fixed that condition. And, sir, if the Senate 
will take any heed of the opinion of one so humble 
as myself, I will say that I believe Mr. Webster, 
in that speech, went to the very verge of the pub- 
lic sentiment in the non-slaveholding States, and 
that to have gone a hair's breadth further, would 
have been a step too bold even for his great weight 
of character. 

I pass over a number of points to which I wished 
to make some allusion, and proceed to another 
matter. The chairman of the Committee on Ter- 
ritories did not, in my judgment, return an entirely 
satisfactory answer to the argument drawn from 
the fact that the Missouri restriction, or the com- 
promise of 1820, is actually and in terms recog- 
nized and confirmed by the territorial legislation of 
1850, in the act organizing the Territory of New 
Mexico. The argument is this: that act contains 
a proviso that nothing therein contained shall be 
construed to impair or qualify the third article of 
the second section of the resolutions for annexing 
Texas. When you turn to that third article of 
the second section of the resolution, you find that 
it recognizes by name the Missouri compromise. 
Now I understood the chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Territories to say, that all that part of 
Texas to which that restriction applied, north of 
36° 30', was cutoff and annexed to New Mexico. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Not all annexed, but a large 
portion annexed, and all cut off. 

Mr. EVERETT. But it does not seem to me 
that this is an adequate answer. In the first place, 
the Senator tells us that all north of 36° 30' was 
cut off from Texas. But there was a consider- 
able portion of territory, as large as four States of 
the size of Connecticut, which was not incorpo- 
rated into New Mexico, and to which the proviso 
still attaches. But whether that be so or not, 
would it not be a strange phenomenon in legisla- 
tion that a subsequent act should be construed to 
supersede, to nullify, to render inoperative and 
void, by any operation, or in any way or form, a 
former act, which it expressly states nothing there- 
in contained shall qualify or impair? It does 
seem to me that this is so formal a recognition, 
that it is unnecessary to inquire whether there is or 
is not any portion of territory to which, in point 
of fact, it attaches, especially when the question 
now is, not whether it operates in Texas, but 
whether it operates in Nebraska in its original 
location. 

The Senator stated that, in point of fact, to some 
extent the Missouri compromise was actually re- 
pealed by the territorial legislation of 1850; and the 
facts by which he supported that statement were 
these: that a portion of territory was taken from 



Texas, where it was subject to the Missouri restric- 
tion, and incorporated into New Mexico, where it 
came under the compromise of 1850; and, in like 
manner, that a portion of the territory now em- 
braced in Utah was taken from the old Louisiana 
purchase, where it was subject to the Missouri re- 
striction, and was incorporated into the Territory 
of Utah, where, in like manner, it came under the 
compromise of 1850. But I think the answers to 
be given to these statements are perfectly satisfac- 
tory. 

In the first place, it was a very small portion of 
territory, very small, indeed, compared with the 
vast residuum; and can we suppose that the few 
hundred, or it may be the few thousand, square 
miles taken off in this way from Texas and the old 
Louisiana purchase, and thrown into New Mexico 
and Utah, can, by way of principle or rule, or in 
any other way, qualify, or modify, or repeal a 
positive enactment covering the remaining space, 
which is as large as all the British Islands, France, 
Prussia, the Austrian Empire, and the smaller Ger- 
manic States put together? 

In the next place, in reference to New Mexico, 
if I understand it, the territory which was thus 
transferred never was subject to the restriction of 
1820 — to the real Missouri compromise, now pro- 
posed to be declared " inoperative and void." It 
was subject to the Texas annexation resolutions, 
which extended the Missouri line, but it was no 
part of Louisiana, never had been, and was not 
subject to the restriction which it is now proposed 
to repeal. 

Then, in the next place, it was a mere ques- 
tion of disputed boundary. I do not wish to do 
the statement of my worthy friend, the chairman 
of the Committee on Territories, any injustice, but 
I think he was incorrect if he said, that " the 
United States purchased this strip of land from 
Texas." These are not the terms of the act. They 
are very carefully stated more than once. The 
United States gave a large sum of money to Texas, 
not to sell this strip of land, but to " cede her 
claim" to it. That was all. Texas claimed it. 
The United States did not allow or disallow the 
claim, but they gave Texas a large consideration 
to cede her claim. It was, therefore, a matter of 
disputed boundary; and it is not decided whether 
the ceded territory originally belonged to Texas 
or New Mexico. 

In reference to Utah, it is true, there is a small 
spot, a very small spot in the Sierra Madre, that 
was taken from the old Louisiana purchase and 
thrown into Utah; but I venture to say that pro- 
bably not a member of the Senate, except the 
worthy chairman of the Committee on Territories, 



11 



was aware of that fact. I do not mean that he 
made any secret of it, but it was not made a point 
at all. The Senate were not apprised that if they 
took this little piece of land, which Colonel Fre- 
mont calls the Middle Park, out of the old Louis- 
iana purchase, and put it into Utah, they would 
repeal the Missouri compromise of 1820, which 
covers half a million of square miles. I say, sir, 
most assuredly the Senate were told no such 
thing; nor do I think it was within the knowledge 
or the imagination of an individual member of the 
body. 

I may seem to labor this point too much; but as 
it is the main point to which I solicit the attention 
of the Senate, I will state one more consideration. 
It has been alluded to already, but I propose to 
put it in a little different light, which seems to me 
to be absolutely decisive of the whole subject. 
The proposition to organize Nebraska Territory 
is not a new one. The chairman of the Commit- 
tee on Territories has had it in view for several 
years — as far back, I believe, as 1844 or 1845. It 
is so stated in Mr. Hickey's valuable edition of 
the Constitution. Whether it was actually before 
the Senate in 1850 I know not; but it was certainly 
in the mind of the Senator from Illinois. Now, sir, 
during the pendency of these compromise meas- 
ures, while the Utah and the New Mexico bills 
were in progress through the two Houses of 
Congress, if they carried with them a principle 
or rule which was to extend itself over all other 
Territories, how can we explain the fact, that 
there is not the slightest allusion in those bills to 
the Territory of Nebraska, which the vigilant 
Senator must have had so strongly on his mind ? 
Is it not a political impossibility, that if it was 
conceived at that time, that measures were going 
through the two Houses which were to give a 
perpetual law to territorial organization, the Ne- 
braska bill would not then have been brought for- 
ward, and in some way or other made to enjoy 
the benefit of it, if benefit it be ? But not a word 
to this effect was intimated that I know of. It was 
entirely ignored, so far as I am aware; or, at any 
rate, no attempt was made at that time to pass a 
Nebraska bill, containing the provisions of the 
Utah and New Mexico bills. 

The compromise measures were the work of 
the Thirty-First Congress, and at the Thirty- 
Second Congress a Nebraska bill was brought in 
by a member from the State of Missouri, in the 
other House. It passed that body by a majority 
of more than two to one. It was contested on 
the ground of injustice to the Indians; but, as far 
as I know — I speak again under correction — I have 
not had time to read all these voluminous de- 



bates — nothing, or next to nothing was said on the 
subject of slavery. At any rate there was no at- 
tempt made to incorporate the provisions of the 
present bill on the subject of slavery. It came 
up here, and was adopted by, and reported from, 
the Committee on Territories, and brought up 
in the Senate towards the close of the last ses- 
sion, and on that occasion contested on the same 
ground; and no attempt was made, or a word 
said, in reference to these provisions on the subject 
of slavery. If at that time the understanding was , 
that you were enacting a principle or a precedent, 
or anything that would carry with it a rule govern- 
ing this case, is it possible that no allusion should 
have been made to it on that occasion ? 

I conclude, therefore, sir, that the compromise 
measures of 1850 ended where they began, with 
the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, to which 
they specifically referred; at any rate, that they 
established no principle which was to govern in 
other cases; that they had no prospective action 
to the organization of Territories in all future time; 
and certainly no retrospective action upon lands 
subject to the restriction of 1820, and to the posi- 
tive enactment that you now propose to declare 
inoperative and void. 

I trust that nothing which I have now said will 
be taken in derogation of the compromises of 1850. 
I adhere to them; I stand by them. I do so for 
many reasons. One is respect for the memory of 
the great men who were the authors of them — 
lights and ornaments of the country , but now taken 
from its service. I would not so soon, if it were 
in my power, undo their work, if for no other 
reason. But beside this, I am one of those — I am 
not ashamed to avow it — who believed at that time, 
and who still believe, that at that period the union 
of these States was in great danger, and that the 
adoption of the compromise measures of 1850 
contributed materially to avert that danger; and 
therefore, sir, I say, as well out of respect to the 
memory of the great men who were the authors 
of them, as to the healing effect of the measures 
themselves, I would adhere to them. They are 
not perfect. I suppose that nobody, either North 
or South, thinks them perfect. They contain some 
provisions not satisfactory to the South, and other 
provisions contrary to the public sentiment of the 
North; but I believed at the time they were the 
wisest, the best, the most effective measures 
which, under the circumstances, could be adopted. 
But you do not strengthen them, you do not show 
your respect for them, by giving them an applica- 
tion which they were never intended to bear. 

Before I take my seat, sir, I will say a few 
words in a desultory manner upon one or two 



12 



other statements which were made by the chairman which forbid aci'izen of thoseStates to do anything 
of the Committee on Territories. He said, if I j , voluntarily, or except under a case of the sternest 
understood him, that the North set the first exam- compulsion, such as preserving the union of these 
pie of making a breach in the Missouri compro-ji States — and really I would do almost anything to 
mise; and I find out of doors that considerable !; effect that object — to acquiesce in carryingslavery 
importance is attached to this idea, that the nullifi- ; ' into a Territory where it did not previously exist. 



cation or repeal of the Missouri compromise at this 
time is but a just retort upon the North for having, 
on some former occasion, set the example of viola- 
ting it. I do not think that this is correctly stated. 



It was that feeling which, in the revolutionary 
crisis, was universal throughout the land; for the 
anti-slavery feeling of that time I take to have 
been mainly a political sentiment, rather than a 



The reference is to the legislation of 1848, when the ' moral or religious one. It was the same feeling 
non-slaveholding States refused to extend the line which, in 1787, led the whole Congress of the 
of S6° 30' to the Pacific Ocean, which was done, Confederation to unite in the Ordinance of 1787. 



the Senator said, under the influence of "north- 
ern votes with free-soil proclivities," or some ex- 



Mr. Jefferson, in 1784, had proposed the same 
proviso, in reference to a!! the territory possessed 



pression of that kind. I do not think the Senator' 1 by the United States, even as far down as 31°, 
shows his usual justice, perhaps, I may say, not which was their southern boundary. It was the 



his usual candor, on this occasion. That took 
place two years before the compromise of 1850, 
and that compromise has been commonly con- 
sidered, if nothing else, at least as a settlement 
of old scores; and anything that dates from 
1848 must be considered, in reference to those 
who took part in it, as honorably and fairly set- 
tled and condoned in 1850. But, sir, how was the 
case? This was not a measure carried by northern 
votes with free-soil proclivities. Far from it. If 
I have read the record aright, the amendment 
which the Senator moved in the Senate, to incor- 
porate the Missouri line into the territorial bill for 
Oregon, was opposed by twenty-one votes in this 
body. Among those twenty-one voters was every 
voter from New England. There was the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts, Mr. Webster. There 
was the lately deceased Senator from New Hamp- 
shire, Mr. Atherton. Both of the votes from 
Ohio: Mr. Allen one of them; and both from 
Wisconsin, were given against this extension of 
the Missouri compromise. Mr. Calhoun voted 
in favor of the amendment; but if I am not in 
error, when the question next came up upon the 
engrossment of the bill, as amended, he voted with 
those twenty-one; he voted side by side with those 
who were included in the designation of the Sen- 



same feeling, I take it, which led respectable 
southern members of Congress, as late as 1S20, 
to vote for the restriction of slavery in the State of 
Missouri — of which class, I believe, there were 
some. And, sir, it is a feeling, I believe in my 
conscience, which, instead of being created, or 
stimulated, or favored, by systematic agitation of 
the subject, is powerfully repressed and discour- 
aged by that very agitation; and if this bill passes 
the Senate, as to all appearance it will, and thus 
demonstrate that that feeling is not so strong now 
as it was in 1820, I should ascribe such a result 
mainly to the recoil of the conservative mind of the 
non-slaveholding States from this harassing and 
disastrous agitation. 

A single word, sir, in respect to this supposed 
principle of non-intervention on the part of Con- 
gress in the sul-ject of slavery in the Territories. 
I confess I am surprised to find this brought for- 
ward, and stated with so much confidence, as an 
established principle of the Government. I know 
that distinguished gentlemen hold the opinion. The 
very distinguished Senator from .Michigan [Mr. 
Cass] holds it, and has propounded it; and I pay 
all due respect and deference to his authority, 
which I conceive to be very high. But I was not 



atorfrom Illinois. In the House, the vote stood, if ; j aware that an y Slich principle was considered a 
I remember the figures, 1:21 to 82— a majority , settled principle of the territorial policy of this 
of 39. This was, I suppose, the whole vote, or] country. Why, sir, from the first enactment in 



nearly the whole vote of the entire non-slavehold- 
ing delegation. That surely, then, ought not to 
be said to be brought about by northern voters 
with free soil proclivities, using those words in 



1789, down to the bill before us, there is no such 
principle in our legislation. As far as I can see it 
would be perfectly competent even now for Con- 
gress to pass any law that they pleased on the sub- 



the acceptation commonly given to them, which I , ject in the Territories under this bill. But how- 
suppose the Senator wishes to do. ever that may be, even by this bill, there is not a 
No, sir, that vote was given in conformity with law which the Territories ran pass, admitting or 
the ancient, the universal, the traditionary opin- excluding slavery, which it is not in the power of 
ion and feeling of the non-alaveholding Stales, II this Congress to disallow the next day. This is 



13 



not a inert; lirulumfulmen. It is not an unexecuted 
power. Your statute-book shows case after case. 
I believe, in reference to a single Territory, that 
there have been fifteen or twenty cases where ter- 
ritorial legislation has been disallowed by Con- 
gress. How, then, can it be said that this principle 
of non-intervention in the government of the Ter- 
ritories is now to be recognized as an established 
principle in the public policy of the Congress of 
the United States? 

Do gentlemen recollect the terms, almost of dis- 
dain, with which this supposed established princi- 
ple of our constitutional policy is treated in that 
last valedictory speech of Mr. Calhoun, which, 
unable to pronounce it himself, he was obliged to 
give to the Senate through themedium of his friend , 
the Senator from Virginia. He reminded the 
Senate that the occupants of a Territory were not 
even called the people — but simply the inhabitants — 
till they were allowed by Congress to call a con- 
vention and form a State constitution. 

Mr. President, I do regret that it is proposed 
to repeal the eighth section of the Missouri act. I 
believe it is admitted that there is no great mate- 
rial interest at stake. I think the chairman of the 
committee, [Mr. Douglas,] the Senator from 
Kentucky, [Mr. Dixon,] and perhaps the Senator 
from Tennessee [Mr. Jones] behind me, admitted 
that there was no great interest at stake. It is 
not supposed that this is to become a slaveholding 
region. The climate, the soil, the staple produc- 
tions are not such as to invite the planter of the 
neighboring States, who is disposed to remove, to 
turn away from the cotton regions of the South, 
and establish himself in Kansas, or Nebraska. 
A few domestic servants may be taken there, a few 
farm laborers, as it were, sporadically, but in the 
long run I am quite sure that it is generally ad- 
mitted that this is not to be a slaveholding region; 
and if not this, certainly no part of the Territory 
still further north. 

Then, sir, why repeal this proviso, this restric- 
tion, which has stood upon the statute-book thirty- 
four years, which has been a platform of concilia- 
tion and of peace, and which it is admitted does 
no practical harm? You say it is derogatory to 
you; that it implies inferiority on the part of the 
South. I do not see that. A State must be either 
slaveholding or non-slaveholding. You cannot 
have it both at the same time; and a line of this 
kind, taking our acquisitions together, considering 
how many new slave States have sprung up south 
of the line, and how few non-slaveholding States 
north of it, makes a pretty equitable division be- 
tween the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding 



States. I cannot see that there is anything derog- 
atory in it — anything that implies inferiority on 
the part of the South. Let me read you a very 
short letter, which I find in a newspaper that came 
into my hands this morning, just before I started 
to come to the Capitol. It is a very remarkable 
one. It was written by the Hon. Charles Pinck- 
ney, then a distinguished member of the House 
of Representatives from South Carolina, and ad- 
dressed to the editor of a newspaper in the city of 

Charleston: 

Congress Hall, MarchS, 1820, ) 
3 o'clock at night. S 

Dear Sir: I hasten to inform you that this moment we 
have carried the question to admit Missouri and all Louisi- 
ana to the southward of 36° 30' free of the restriction of 
slavery, and giiie the South, in a short time, an addition of 
six, and perhaps ci^ht, members to the Senate of the United 
States. It is considered here by the slaveholding States 
as a great triumph. The votes were close — ninety to eighty- 
six, [the vote was so first declared] — produced by the seced- 
ing and absence of a few moderate men from the North. 
To the north of 36° 30' there is to be, by the present law, 
restriction, which you will see by the votes I voted against. 
But it is at present of no moment; it is a vast tract, unin- 
habited only by savages and wild beasts, in which not a foot 
of the Indian claim to soil is cxtinguisbed, and in which, 
according to the ideas prevalent; no land office will be open 
lor a great length of time. 

With respect, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES P1NCKNEY. 

So that it was thought at the time to be an ar- 
rangement highly advantageous to the southern 
States. No land office was to be opened in the 
region for a long time; but that time has come. If 
you pass this bill, land offices will soon be opened; 
and now you propose to repeal the Missouri com- 
promise ! 

A word more, sir, and I have done. With 
reference to the great question of slavery — that 
terrible question — the only one on which the North 
and the South of this great Republic differ irrecon- 
cilably — I have not, on this occasion, a word to 
say. My humble career is drawing near its close; 
and I shall end it as I began, with using no other 
words on that subject than those of moderation, 
conciliation, and harmony between the two great 
sections of the country. I blame no one who 
differs from me in this respect. I allow to others, 
what I claim for myself, the credit of honesty and 
purity of motive. But for my own part, the rule 
of my life, as far as circumstances have enabled me 
to act up to it, has been, to say nothing that would 
rend to kindle unkind feeling on this subject. I 
have never known men on this, or any other sub- 
ject, to be convinced by harsh epithets or denun- 
ciation. 

I believe the union of these States is the greatest 
possible blessing — that it comprises within itself 
all other blessings, political, national, and social; 
and I trust that my eyes may close long before the 



14 



day shall come — if it ever shall come — when that 
Union shall be at an end. Sir, I share the opin- 
ions and the sentiments of the part of the country 
where I was born and educated, where my ashes 
will be laid, and where my children will succeed 
me. But in relation to my fellow-citizens in other 
parts of the country, I will treat their constitu- 
tional and their legal rights with respect, and their 
characters and their feelings with tenderness. I 
believe them to be as good Christians, as good pa- 
triots, as good men, as we are; and I claim that 
we, in our turn, are as good as they. 

I rejoiced to hear my friend from Kentucky, 
[Mr. Dixon,] if he will allow me to call him so — 
I concur most heartily in the sentiment — utter the 
opinion that a wise and gracious Providence, in 
his own good time, will find the ways and the 
channels to remove from the land what I consider 



this great evil; but 1 do not expect that what has 
been done in three centuries and a half is to be 
undone in a day or a year, or a few years; and I 
believe that, in the mean time, the desired end will 
be retarded rather than promoted by passionate 
sectional agitation. I believe, further, that the fate 
of that great and interesting continent in the elder 
world, Africa, is closely intertwined and wrapped 
up with the fortunes of her children in all the 
parts of the earth to which they have been dis- 
persed, and that at some future time, which is 
already in fact beginning, they will go back to the 
land of their fathers the voluntary missionaries of 
Civilization and Christianity; and finally, sir, I 
doubt not that in His own good time the Ruler of 
all will vindicate the most glorious of His preroga- 
tives, 

" From seeming evil still educing good." 



«46 



